Screening for prostate cancer: Who and how often?

,

Applied Evidence

Screening for prostate cancer: Who and how often?

J Fam Pract. 2005 July;54(7):586-596

PDF Download

References

1. American Academy of Family Physicians. Summary of recommendation for periodic health examinations. August 2002. Available at: www.aafp.org/PreBuilt/PHERev5.30802.pdf. Accessed on June 10, 2005.

2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Prostate Cancer. 2002. Available at: www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsprca.htm. Accessed on June 10, 2005.

3. American College of Physicians. Screening for prostate cancer. Position paper. Clinical Guideline: Part III. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:480-484.

4. Harris R, Lohr K, Beck R, Fink K, Godley P, Bunton A. Screening for prostate cancer. Systematic Evidence Review for AHRQ. Available at: www.ahrq.gov/uspstfix.htm. Accessed on June 10, 2005.

5. American Cancer Society. Cancer statistics 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:10-30.

6. Ries L, Eisner M, Kosary C, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2000. Bethesda, Md: National Cancer Institute; 2003. Available at seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2002/. Accessed on June 10, 2005.

7. DevCan: Probability of dying of cancer [computer program]. Version 5.1. Bethesda, Md: National Cancer Instititute; 2003. Available at: srab.cancer.gov/devcan/. Accessed on June 10, 2005.

8. Neal DE, Leung HY, Powell PH, Hamdy FC, Donovan JL. Unanswered questions in screening for prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:1316-1321.

9. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 2nd ed. Alexandria, Va: International Medical Publishing; 1996.

10. Kabalin J, McNeal J, Price H, Freiha F, Stamey T. Unsuspected adenocarcinoma of the prostate in patients undergooing cystoprostatectomy for other causes: incidence, histology and morphometric observations. J Urol 1989;141:1091-1094.

11. Montie J, Wood DJ, Pontes J, Boyett J, Levin H. Adenocarcinoma of the prostate in cystoprostatectomy specimens removed for bladder cancer. Cancer 1989;63:381-385.

12. Bunting PS. Screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen: beware the biases. Clin Chim Acta 2002;315:71-97.

13. Gronberg H. Prostate cancer epidemiology. Lancet 2003;361:859-864.

14. Harris R, Lohr KN. Screening for prostate cancer: an update of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:917-929.

15. American Cancer Society. ACS Cancer Detection Guidelines. Available at: www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_2_3X_ACS_Cancer_Detection_Guidelines _36.asp. Accessed June 10, 2005.

16. Smith D, Catalona W. Interexaminer variability of digital rectal examination in detecting prostate cancer. Urology 1995;45:70-74.

17. Kishor M, Cable G. Meta-analysis of prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination as screening tests for prostate carcinoma. J Am Board Fam Pract 2003;16:95-101.

18. Hoogendam A, Buntix F, deVet HCW. The diagnostic value of digital rectal examination in primary care screening for prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Fam Pract 1999;16:621-626.

19. Gann PH, Hennekens CH, Stampfer MJ. A prospective evaluation of plasma prostate-specific antigen for detection of prostatic cancer. JAMA 1995;273:289-294.

20. Hakama M, Stenman UH, Aromaa A, Leinonen J, Hakulinen T, Knekt I. Validity of the prostate specific antigen test for prostate cancer screening: followup study with a bank of 21,000 sera in Finland. J Urol 2001;166:2189-2191.

21. Humphrey L, Helfand M, Chan B, Woolf S. Breast cancer screening: summary of the evidence. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:344-346.

22. Thompson I, Pauler D, Goodman P, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level <4 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2239-2246.

23. Collins MM, Ransohoff D, MJ Barry. Early detection of prostate cancer-serendipity strikes again. JAMA 1997;278:1516-1519.

24. Eastham J, Riedel E, Scardino P, et al. Variation of serum prostate-specific antigen levels. An evaluation of year-to-year fluctuations. JAMA 2003;289:2695-2700.

25. Etzioni R, Penson DF, Legler JM, et al. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:981-990.

26. Zappa M, Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Mazzotta A. Overdiagnosis of prostate carcinoma by screening: an estimate based on the results of the Florence Screening Pilot Study. Ann Oncol 1998;9:1297-1300.

27. Draisma G, Boer R, Otto S, et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:868-878.

28. Auvin A, Maattanen L, Stenman UH, et al. Lead-time in prostate cancer screening (Finland). Cancer Causes Control 2002;13:279-285.

29. Gleason D, Mellinger G. Group at VACUR. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974;111:58-64.

30. Albertson PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-Year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005;293:2095-2101.

31. Schwartz K, Grignon D, Sakr W, Wood DJ. Prostate cancer histologic trends in the metropolitan Detroit are, 1982 to 1996. Urology 1999;53:769-774.

32. Smith D, Catalona W. The nature of prostate cancer detected through prostate specific antigen based screening. J Urol 1994;152:1732-1736.

33. Hoedemaeker RF, van der Kwast T, Boer R, et al. Pathological features of prostate cancer found at population-based screening with a four-year interval. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1153-1158.

34. Chu KC, Tarone RE, Freeman HP. Trends in prostate cancer mortality among black men and white men in the United States. Cancer 2003;97:1507-1516.

35. National Cancer Institute of Canada. Canadian cancer statistics 2001. Toronto: National Cancer Institute of Canada; 2001. Available at: www.ncic.cancer.ca. Accessed June 10, 2005.

36. Coory M, Baade P. Mortality from prostate cancer is decreasing. Med J Aust 2002;176:345-345.

37. Majeed A, Babb P, Jones J, Quinn M. Trends in prostate cancer incidence, mortality and survival in England and Wales, 1971–1998. BJU Int 2000;85:1058-1062.

38. Oliver S, Gunnell D, Donovan J. Comparison of trends in prostate-cancer mortality in England and Wales and the USA. Lancet 2000;355:1788-1789.

39. Lu-Yao G, Albertsen PC, Stanford JL, Stukel TA, Walker-Corkery ES, Barry MJ. Natural experiment examining impact of aggressive screening and treatment on prostate cancer mortality in two fixed cohorts from Seattle area and Connecticut. BMJ 2002;325:740.-

40. Coldman A, Phillips N, Pickles T. Trends in prostate cancer incidence and mortality: an analysis of mortality change by screening intensity. CMAJ 2003;168:31-35.

41. Feuer EJ, Merrill RM, Hankey BF. Cancer surveillance series: interpreting trends in prostate cancer—part II: Cause of death misclassification and the recent rise and fall in prostate cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1025-1032.

42. Frankel S, Smith GD, Donovan J, Neal D. Screening for prostate cancer. Lancet 2003;361:1122-1128.

43. Partin MR, Wilt TJ. Informing patients about prostate cancer screening: identifying and meeting the challenges while the evidence remains uncertain. Am J Med 2002;113:691-693.

44. McFall SL, Hamm RM. Interpretation of prostate cancer screening events and outcomes: a focus group study. Patient Educ Couns 2003;49:207-218.

45. Litwin MS, Hays RD, Fink A, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes in men treated for localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1995;273:129-135.

46. Penson DF, Litwin MS. Quality of life after treatment for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 2003;4:185-195.

47. Lubeck DP, Litwin MS, Henning JM, Stoddard ML, Flanders SC, Carroll PR. Changes in the health-related quality of life in the first year after treatment for prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. Urology 1999;53:180-186.

48. Bacon C, Giovannucci E, Testa M, Kawachi I. The impact of cancer treatment on quality of life outcomes for patients with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2001;166:1804-1810.

49. Makinen T, Auvinen A, Hakama M, Stenman UH, Tammela TL. Acceptability and complications of prostate biopsy in population-based PSA screening versus routine clinical practice: a prospective, controlled study. Urology 2002;60:846-850.

50. Fowler FJ, Jr, Barry MJ, Lu-Yao G, Roman A, Wasson J, Wennberg JE. Patient-reported complications and follow-up treatment after radical prostatectomy. The National Medicare Experience: 1988-1990 (updated June 1993). Urology 1993;42:622-629.

51. Schwartz K, Bunner S, Bearer R, Severson RK. Complications from treatment for prostate carcinoma among men in the Detroit area. Cancer 2002;95:82-89.

52. Potosky AL, Legler J, Albertsen PC, et al. Health outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1582-1592.

53. Sebesta M, Cespedes RD, Luhman E, Optenberg S, Thompson IM. Questionnaire-based outcomes of urinary incontinence and satisfaction rates after radical prostatectomy in a national study population. Urology 2002;60:1055-1058.

54. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1977-1184.

55. Labrie F, Candas B, Dupont A, et al. Screening decreases prostate cancer death: first analysis of the 1988 Quebec prospective randomized controlled trial. Prostate 1999;38:83-91.

56. Alexander FE, Prescott RJ. Reply to Labrie et al. Results of the mortality analysis of the Quebec randomized controlled trial (RCT). Prostate 1999;40:135-137.

57. Prorok P, Andriole G, Bresalier R, et al. Design of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Control Clin Trials 2000;21:273S-309S.

58. Standaert B, Denis L. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer: an update. Cancer 1997;80:1830-1834.

59. Wilt TJ, Brawer M. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial: a randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy versus expectant management for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1994;152:1910-1914.

60. Schapira M, VanRuiswyk J. The effect of an illustrated pamphlet decision-aid on the use of prostate cancer screening tests. J Fam Pract 2000;49:418-424.

61. Davison B, Kirk P, Degner L, Hassard T. Information and patient participation in screening for prostate cancer. Patient Educ Couns 1999;37:255-263.

62. Merenstein D. Winners and losers. JAMA 2004;291:15-16.

63. Horninger W, Berger A, Pelzer A, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: updated experience from the Tyrol study. Current Urol Reports 2004;5:220-225.

64. Raaijmakers R, Kirkels WJ, Roobol MJ, Wildhagen MF, Schrder FH. Complication rates and risk factors of 5802 transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsies of the prostate within a population-based screening program. Urology 2002;60:826-830.

65. Fowler F, Barry MJ, Lu-Yao G, Wasson J, Bin L. Outcomes of external beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a study of Medicare beneficiaries in three Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results areas. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:2258-2265.

66. Hollenbeck BK, Dunn RL, Wei JT, Sandler HM, Sanda MG. Sexual health recovery after prostatectomy, external radiation, or brachytherapy for early stage prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 2004;5:212-219.

67. Potosky AL, Knopf K, Clegg LX, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes after primary androgen deprivation therapy: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3750-3757.

68. Lee R, Penson DF. Treatment outcomes in localized prostate cancer: a patient-oriented approach. Semin Urol Oncol 2002;20:63-73.

69. Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AS, et al. Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA 2000;283:354-360.

70. Robinson JW, Moritz S, Fung T. Meta-analysis of rates of erectile function after treatment of localized prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:1063-1068.

71. Coley CM, Barry MJ, Fleming C, Fahs MC, Mulley AG. Early detection of prostate cancer. Part II: Estimating the risks, benefits, and costs. American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:468-479.

Counseling recommendations

However, providing men with information on prostate cancer screening before they discussed it with their family physician, rather than after the visit, resulted in patients having a significantly more active role in making a screening decision, and lower levels of decisional conflict (LOE: 2b).⁶¹ Informational pamphlets are available through the AAFP and CDC websites listed in TABLE 4. Additional websites containing prostate cancer screening information are found in TABLE 4. We also provide a bullet item list of key points for discussion with patients (TABLE 5), which can be used along with the balance sheet provided here (TABLE 2).

Shared decision-making is not an easy or quick process. Yet, the majority of patients will benefit from the discussion, regardless of the final decision. Of course, there are instances when a shared decision-making process is well-documented, and still results in an undesirable outcome;⁶² however, while the evidence for screening remains controversial, patients have the right to know that those controversies exist and why they exist.

TABLE 4
Useful websites for patients to find prostate cancer screening information

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate/decisionguide/index.htm
10th grade reading level*
Good coverage of screening and treatment controversies
Offers downloadable PDF version
NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE
cis.nci.nih.gov/asp/FactSheetPub/AlphaSubList.asp?alpha=47
10th grade reading level
FAQ format
Offers Spanish version
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_3X_Can_prostate_ cancer_be_found_early_36.asp
12th grade reading level
Lacks discussion of treatment options and their side effects
Biased in favor of screening but acknowledges that other distinguished organizations are not
AMERICAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
www.urologyhealth.org/adult/index.cfm?cat=09
12th grade reading level
Easy to navigate among screening and specific treatment pages
Biased in favor of PSA screening
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS
familydoctor.org/healthfacts/361/
11th grade reading level
Question/answer format
Very straightforward, lacks depth
www.aafp.org/x19519.xml
7th grade reading level
Separate information sheet for patients and physicians
Presents possible outcomes of PSA test and prostate cancer treatment in easy-to-follow format
WEBMD
my.webmd.com/medical_information/condition_centers/prostate_cancer/default.htm
9th grade reading level
Question/answer format
Specifically addresses false negative and positives with current estimates
DARTMOUTH CENTER FOR SHARED DECISION MAKING
www.dhmc.org/dhmc-internet-upload/file_collection/PSA.pdf
6th grade reading level
Well-designed, simple presentation of pros and cons of PSA testing
*Fleish-Kincaid grade level score based on average sentence length and average number of syllables per word.

TABLE 5
Talking points for patients and physicians

Prostate cancer is an important men’s health problem
Screening may prevent early prostate cancer death
DRE alone has little value as a screening test
Age, prostate size, prostatitis, ejaculation, prostate biopsy, and prostate surgery can cause a falsely elevated PSA test
Approximately 70% of men with an elevated serum PSA do not have cancer
The percentage of PSA screening false negatives ranges from 10%–22% in large studies
If the test is abnormal, a biopsy will be recommended
If the biopsy is positive, treatment options will be given
Many men experience long-term urinary incontinence and impotence related to their treatment

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Kendra Schwartz, MD, MSPH, 101 E. Alexandrine, Detroit, MI 48201, E-mail: kensch@med.wayne.edu